We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"Message broadcasting: There could be a use case sending the same message to all consumers. So as a producer, I broadcast the message to a topic. Then, whichever consumers are subscribed to the topic can consume the same message."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP."
"Excellent speeds for publishing messages faster."
"The ability to partition data on Kafka is valuable."
"The high availability is valuable. It is robust, and we can rely on it for a huge amount of data."
"One of the most valuable features I have found is Kafka Connect."
"The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side."
"The most valuable feature is the documentation, which is good and clear."
"The connectors provided by the solution are valuable."
"When comparing it with other messaging and integration platforms, this is one of the best rated."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"I would like the tool to improve compliance and stability. We will encounter issues while using the central applications. In the solution's future releases, I want to control and set limitations for databases."
"There are some stability issues."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"Kafka's interface could also use some work. Some of our products are in C, and we don't have any libraries to use with C. From an interface perspective, we had a library from the readies. And we are streaming some of the products we built to readies. That is one of the requirements. It would be good to have those libraries available in a future release for our C++ clients or public libraries, so we can include them in our product and build on that."
"The ability to connect the producers and consumers must be improved."
"Too much dependency on the zookeeper and leader selection is still the bottleneck for Kafka implementation."
"They need to have a proper portal to do everything because, at this moment, Kafka is lagging in this regard."
"There have been some challenges with monitoring Apache Kafka, as there are currently only a few production-grade solutions available, which are all under enterprise license and therefore not easily accessible. The speaker has not had access to any of these solutions and has instead relied on tools, such as Dynatrace, which do not provide sufficient insight into the Apache Kafka system. While there are other tools available, they do not offer the same level of real-time data as enterprise solutions."
"There are some latency problems with Kafka."
"The management overhead is more compared to the messaging system. There are challenges here and there. Like for long usage, it requires restarts and nodes from time to time."
"The GUI tools for monitoring and support are still very basic and not very rich. There is no help in determining a shard key for performance."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Allows for asynchronous communication, enabling services to operate independently but issues with stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and Redis, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Amazon MQ. See our ActiveMQ vs. Apache Kafka report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.